manpath change for ports ?

Tijl Coosemans tijl at FreeBSD.org
Fri Mar 10 16:04:41 UTC 2017


On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 10:50:39 +0100 Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des at des.no> wrote:
> John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org> writes:
>> I wouldn't even mind if we had both /usr/local/man and /usr/local/share/man
>> so long as our default MANPATH included both if that means applying fewer
>> patches to ports.  
> 
> The default MANPATH is constructed dynamically from PATH:
> 
>      1.   From each component of the user's PATH for the first of:
>           -   pathname/man
>           -   pathname/MAN
>           -   If pathname ends with /bin: pathname/../man
>           Note: Special logic exists to make /bin and /usr/bin look in
>           /usr/share/man for manual files.
> 
> If we change this to:
> 
>      1.   From each component of the user's PATH for the first of:
>           -   pathname/man
>           -   pathname/MAN
>           -   If pathname ends with /bin or /sbin: pathname/../man and
>               pathname/../share/man
> 
> we wouldn't need any "special logic", but I really don't like the idea
> of having different ports installing man pages in different locations.

I grepped the ports tree and found nearly 5700 ports.  That's a lot to
change all at once but it may be doable.  It depends on how much fallout
there is in the exp-run.

Ports are installed into a staging area now where files can be moved to
another location.  So a post-install make target could be added that
moves the man pages to share/man if necessary (and prints a warning to
maintainers in that case).  Then all pkg-plist and PLIST_FILES need to
be modified (with sed) and PORTREVISION needs to be bumped (also
scripted).

The same could be done to move info and pkgconfig files.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list